zins_get_casb_app_report

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with "Read-only analytics." It adds behavioral detail beyond annotations by describing the row granularity, aggregated usage total, and the required 7/14-day window. It does not mention pagination or limit behavior, but the annotation coverage lowers the burden.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the purpose, immediately states the read-only nature, and then provides output and window constraints. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a read-only report tool with no output schema, the description explains the report's row semantics, purpose, and time-window requirement, which is enough to orient an agent. It omits details like result ordering, pagination/limit implications, and precise time-parameter formats, so it is not fully complete, but it covers the essential operational context.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It adds one useful parameter-related constraint: the window must be a 7- or 14-day historical interval. However, it does not explain the units or semantics of start_time/end_time, the relationship with start_days_ago/end_days_ago, or the behavior/meaning of limit, leaving meaningful gaps.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb and resource: "Get the CASB ... SaaS-application usage report." It further clarifies the output semantics ("One row per SaaS application with its aggregated usage total") and the analytics use case, distinguishing it from sibling report tools by naming CASB app usage explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use it: "Read-only analytics ... for seeing which cloud apps are being accessed." It also gives a hard constraint on the time window ("must be a 7- or 14-day historical interval"). However, it does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it stops short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.